Will a European-style abortion law please pro-life voters?

[TexasTiger 12,916]

Roe was overturned for this? 15 weeks?
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4595381-rick-scott-florida-abortion-ban/amp/

Sure, most centrist folks may be persuaded this is the way to go, but is this why anti-abortion folks became the single strongest supporter of Republicans over the last 40 years? Sure, they want go to Democrats, but will they stay home? Stop donating to the GOP?

[TexasTiger 12,916]

Continues:

https://www.semafor.com/article/04/15/2024/trump-gave-maga-politicians-permission-to-move-left-on-abortion-some-are-taking-it

[TexasTiger 12,916]

@TitanTiger curious as to your take.

[TitanTiger 20,485]

I think there's a case to be made for incrementalism.  Move the default toward a culture of valuing human life over treating it as disposable, but do so in steps that the culture can handle.  Jarring, radical leaps from one set of norms to a much different set in one fell swoop tends to unnerve people and make them reactionary or susceptible to fear mongering.

I also think there's some validity to the idea that the second you start carving out exceptions where it's ok to kill innocent human beings (especially based on arbitrary time limits, rape/incest, etc), you've cut the legs out from under your own position that it's a human rights issue in the first place.  

I think that many pro-lifers who take a stricter stance and fight for the narrowest exceptions such as life of the mother are coming from a good place, but in practicality by moving too swiftly toward those restrictions without doing the hard work of converting hearts and minds, they will end up losing the battle politically.  The impulse to strike while the iron is hot and you have the advantage may ultimately backfire.  So maybe - politically at least - the better approach is to establish laws around a new consensus that is miles better than what we had over the last 50 years, even if it's not everything it can be.  Then get to work attacking the various societal circumstances that often drive women to consider abortion as the only alternative.  Make sound arguments and move people toward seeing the reasonable, humane choice is to choose life, then perhaps revisit the issue and see if we can have more consensus around further changes to the law that save more.

[TitanTiger 20,485]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

I think there's a case to be made for incrementalism.  Move the default toward a culture of valuing human life over treating it as disposable, but do so in steps that the culture can handle.  Jarring, radical leaps from one set of norms to a much different set in one fell swoop tends to unnerve people and make them reactionary or susceptible to fear mongering.

I also think there's some validity to the idea that the second you start carving out exceptions where it's ok to kill innocent human beings (especially based on arbitrary time limits, rape/incest, etc), you've cut the legs out from under your own position that it's a human rights issue in the first place.  

I think that many pro-lifers who take a stricter stance and fight for the narrowest exceptions such as life of the mother are coming from a good place, but in practicality by moving too swiftly toward those restrictions without doing the hard work of converting hearts and minds, they will end up losing the battle politically.  The impulse to strike while the iron is hot and you have the advantage may ultimately backfire.  So maybe - politically at least - the better approach is to establish laws around a new consensus that is miles better than what we had over the last 50 years, even if it's not everything it can be.  Then get to work attacking the various societal circumstances that often drive women to consider abortion as the only alternative.  Make sound arguments and move people toward seeing the reasonable, humane choice is to choose life, then perhaps revisit the issue and see if we can have more consensus around further changes to the law that save more.

Just as a follow on to the "incremental" vs "do the right thing immediately" debate...

Map this same discussion on the issue of slavery for instance.  There were obviously those in the South that would have kept slavery in place indefinitely.  They saw little to no problem with it as they viewed African races as inferior and suited to their current station in life, and even as something less than fully human.  And practically, it was a valuable source of free labor they didn't want to lose.  But there were those who felt that slavery was an institution that needed to come to an end but that the best way to do it was gradually.  They felt black people weren't ready to have to fend for themselves.  And society at large wasn't ready or equipped to suddenly dump millions of poor, uneducated, illiterate laborers into the work market, nor to have the right to vote on matters of importance that required being informed and understanding the issues.  It would be too much of a shock to the system and foster resentment and incur radical reactions.  Better to gradually educate enslaved blacks, dole out freedoms and privileges in stages and maybe in 20-30 year's time they, and society, would be ready to fully grant them their freedom and full citizenship rights.  And the US would have time to gradually wean themselves off dependency on free labor and absorb the economic impact.

On paper, it makes a lot of sense.  But there's also the argument that continuing to allow one group of people to be viewed as subhuman, as property, and using them for labor to benefit yourself and build the nation's economy undermines the argument that slavery is a moral blight and an abrogation of intrinsic human rights, worth, and dignity.  And that's true even if your end goal is to grant them (as a group) their freedom 15, 20, 30 years from now.

Ultimately Britain in the 1830s and the US, after a long and bloody civil war, it was abolished pretty much immediately.  No gradual granting of freedom and rights.

If you can wrap your mind around the problems and considerations surrounding that debate, you can understand in some sense how the various sides view the abortion issue - the pros and cons of incrementalism.

[TexasTiger 12,916]

12 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I think there's a case to be made for incrementalism.  Move the default toward a culture of valuing human life over treating it as disposable, but do so in steps that the culture can handle.  Jarring, radical leaps from one set of norms to a much different set in one fell swoop tends to unnerve people and make them reactionary or susceptible to fear mongering.

I also think there's some validity to the idea that the second you start carving out exceptions where it's ok to kill innocent human beings (especially based on arbitrary time limits, rape/incest, etc), you've cut the legs out from under your own position that it's a human rights issue in the first place.  

I think that many pro-lifers who take a stricter stance and fight for the narrowest exceptions such as life of the mother are coming from a good place, but in practicality by moving too swiftly toward those restrictions without doing the hard work of converting hearts and minds, they will end up losing the battle politically.  The impulse to strike while the iron is hot and you have the advantage may ultimately backfire.  So maybe - politically at least - the better approach is to establish laws around a new consensus that is miles better than what we had over the last 50 years, even if it's not everything it can be.  Then get to work attacking the various societal circumstances that often drive women to consider abortion as the only alternative.  Make sound arguments and move people toward seeing the reasonable, humane choice is to choose life, then perhaps revisit the issue and see if we can have more consensus around further changes to the law that save more.

Thanks for the thoughtful answer. Did this play out like you anticipated or were you (perhaps not now, but initially) surprised these supposedly strongly anti-abortion Republicans and advocating European progressive positions on abortion? Does it lessen the motivation of pro-life voters to stick with the Republican Party?

[AU9377 4,948]

On 4/16/2024 at 9:24 AM, TexasTiger said:

Roe was overturned for this? 15 weeks?
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4595381-rick-scott-florida-abortion-ban/amp/

Sure, most centrist folks may be persuaded this is the way to go, but is this why anti-abortion folks became the single strongest supporter of Republicans over the last 40 years? Sure, they want go to Democrats, but will they stay home? Stop donating to the GOP?

We all use our personal experiences in shaping our views and opinions and this is what I have seen impacting many.   My mother has always been very involved with our Southern Baptist church.  She very much lives as an example with the unique ability to also not be judgmental toward others.  She has never been political, but I think it is safe to assume that she is also pro-life.  She has never really made a point to discuss the topic.  That is, until the past year or two.  Listening to the nightmare stories being told by women in some states that have had to fly to another state to end their pregnancy, even though the child they are carrying will be still born, pushed her over the edge. She believes that is inhumane and now takes the position that, unless exceptions are included, she prefers the matter to be a personal choice.    If she can be moved based on those horror stories, I can't honestly see how those laws stand a chance over time.  Interestingly enough, she decided not to vote for Donald Trump when he gave an interview and stated that he had never asked for forgiveness because he has never needed it.....

This is the kind of issue that, had Donald Trump spent more time being a leader and less time doing whatever it was he was doing, he could have galvanized the country and easily been re-elected.  Using his cult like status for the good of the country would have been rewarded in history books 100 years from now.  Unfortunately, he does not have the capacity to do that.

[TitanTiger 20,485]

10 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Thanks for the thoughtful answer. Did this play out like you anticipated or were you (perhaps not now, but initially) surprised these supposedly strongly anti-abortion Republicans and advocating European progressive positions on abortion?

I’m not surprised by Trump at all because I never believed the pro-life position was a sincere core value for him to begin with. Trump’s only core value is whatever benefits him most at a given moment - to gain power or more money.  He will shift wherever he sees the wind blowing if it gives him a viable path to one of those things. 

Neither does Kari Lake shock me. She’s an opportunist as well and has no principles. 

Rick Scott surprised me some. 
 

10 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Does it lessen the motivation of pro-life voters to stick with the Republican Party?

I would say yes, except we have a two-party system and the Democrats are not positioning themselves as a viable alternative for pro-life voters. If anything, they’re staking out even more extreme positions on abortion that are far more liberal than what you see in Europe. So for now, I think they stick with the Republican party and just double down on vetting candidates on their pro-life bonafides. 

But this just goes to illustrate a point I’ve been hammering home for years now.  The GOP has gone through a self-induced frontal lobotomy since 2016 and the Democrats have fumbled away every opportunity to become the dominant party, simply by becoming the party of “normal.”  A center-left oriented Democratic Party would gobble up independents right now and keep their liberal voting base as well because so many Republicans have gone Trump crazy. But they just could not resist elevating their own band of weirdos.  So the presidential race and congressional races are far closer than they ought to be.  

[TexasTiger 12,916]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

But they just could not resist elevating their own band of weirdos.  

Examples you think fit this?

[TitanTiger 20,485]

30 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Examples you think fit this?

First let me state, I don't think the Democrats have the number of complete flakes that the GOP has managed to shoehorn in on the Trump coattails.  I mean, Marjorie Taylor Greene is a level of crazy and stupid that it's on its own tier.  

That said I think of people like Rashida Tliab, Ilian Omar, Ayanna Presley, Ocasio-Cortez make up in volume what they lack in sheer numbers.  Appointing/hiring people like Rachel Levine and Sam Brinton to key public facing positions in the administration, representing the US abroad.

And for the Democrats at least, I'd say it's as much about positions they are moved to and advocate for that are either new or are now more publicly adopted or deemed acceptable, such as:

- The increased platforming of wacko gender identity stuff.  Democratic governors vetoing legislation that calls for women's and girls' sports to be reserved for biological females.

- The shift from abortion as "safe, legal and rare" to basically no restrictions, with multiple states allowing for abortion right up to the moment of a full term birth.  

- The statements and positions many of them are taking on Israel vs Hamas (some congressional members even adopting or excusing the "from the river to the sea" messaging).

- Kamala Harris in the run up to the 2020 elections not just advocating for universal health care but the elimination of private insurance altogether, even if people like the plan they're paying for.

- AOC calling for a 70% top marginal tax rate and stating that "billionaires shouldn't exist."

There are more examples but that's just a few I could think of off the top of my head.  When people who might otherwise be open to voting to hand the reins of power more fully over to Democrats across the board see patterns like this, it makes them wary.  That swath from the center-left to the center-right feels like they can't fully trust the Democrats in power either.  They don't want their daughters being denied opportunities in sports or having some one claiming to be a woman with his fully intact penis and testicles showering and changing in the women's locker room at their wife's gym.  They have grave moral problems with the idea that you can kill a child in the womb right up to full term delivery.  So you end up where we are - the extremes of each party having a outsized and undeserved ability to steer the priorities of the respective parties and gatekeep normal candidates from making it out of the primaries.

 

[TexasTiger 12,916]

18 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

AOC calling for a 70% top marginal tax rate and stating that "billionaires shouldn't exist."

The top marginal rate in the 1950’s was 91%— but that was a widely radical period.

 

22 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Rashida Tliab, Ilian Omar, Ayanna Presley, Ocasio-Cortez make up in volume what they lack in sheer numbers.

They get outsized media attention, but their legislative influence is practically non-existent. With an equally narrow majority, Pelosi kept them in check. Our current House is so gerrymandered that folks on the margins get elected who presumably represent their districts, but only one party allows itself to consistently be held hostage by those extremists. 

 

25 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Kamala Harris in the run up to the 2020 elections not just advocating for universal health care but the elimination of private insurance altogether, even if people like the plan they're paying for.

And her campaign crashed and burned- has she said it since? How many people even recall what she said in her brief, disastrous campaign?

 

26 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

The shift from abortion as "safe, legal and rare" to basically no restrictions, with multiple states allowing for abortion right up to the moment of a full term birth.  

How common are those abortions up to the moment of birth ? And there are parameters- folks differ on what the threat to the health of the mother includes. Dems aren’t largely calling for no limits. 

 

30 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Appointing/hiring people like Rachel Levine and Sam Brinton to key public facing positions in the administration, representing the US abroad.

I find both absurd, but how much of their roles involved representing the US abroad?

On the whole, Dems in leadership have not been radical or outside mainstream. Dick Durbin, Schumer, Pelosi, Hoyer, Jeffries— sane and reasonable, despite the absurd painting of Pelosi by Republicans. The Right Wing noise machine is very effective in creating that perception, though.

[TitanTiger 20,485]

4 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

The top marginal rate in the 1950’s was 91%— but that was a widely radical period.

 

They get outsized media attention, but their legislative influence is practically non-existent. With an equally narrow majority, Pelosi kept them in check. Our current House is so gerrymandered that folks on the margins get elected who presumably represent their districts, but only one party allows itself to consistently be held hostage by those extremists. 

 

And her campaign crashed and burned- has she said it since? How many people even recall what she said in her brief, disastrous campaign?

 

How common are those abortions up to the moment of birth ? And there are parameters- folks differ on what the threat to the health of the mother includes. Dems aren’t largely calling for no limits. 

 

I find both absurd, but how much of their roles involved representing the US abroad?

On the whole, Dems in leadership have not been radical or outside mainstream. Dick Durbin, Schumer, Pelosi, Hoyer, Jeffries— sane and reasonable, despite the absurd painting of Pelosi by Republicans. The Right Wing noise machine is very effective in creating that perception, though.

The cumulative effect of the things I said add up.  Kamala's campaign failed not because of this but myriad flubs and missteps, and the fact that Biden was a known and generally trusted entity.  But now she's the VP.

Again, I'm not saying the Dems are as bad in terms of letting the inmates take over the asylum.  I'm saying that the Dems had an opportunity to become the dominant party for a decade or more and have flubbed it by not keeping their own weirdos in check and making it clear they are the party of normal policies - the party that can reasonably represent even centrists and center-right type folks.  It only takes taking the idiotic stance on a few of these things to keep folks on the fence rather than coming over to your side.

[TitanTiger 20,485]

And let me add...

When you're trying to win over people who normally don't vote for you but might be persuaded to, you actually have to do more than just stay put.  You have to make it more obvious that you're reasonable, that you aren't pulling a bait and switch where you avoid answering questions about hot button issues to get votes then go on voting in typical ways that are too accommodating of your far end after the election.  I don't think the Democrats have done a very good job or making it clear that they are the party that extends to the center and, at least in some ways or to a degree, just beyond it.  

The GOP has completely abdicated the space and seems to be doing their damndest to alienate even their center-right flank.  But I don't see the Dems making it clear they want to truly represent either.

[TexasTiger 12,916]

8 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

And let me add...

When you're trying to win over people who normally don't vote for you but might be persuaded to, you actually have to do more than just stay put.  You have to make it more obvious that you're reasonable, that you aren't pulling a bait and switch where you avoid answering questions about hot button issues to get votes then go on voting in typical ways that are too accommodating of your far end after the election.  I don't think the Democrats have done a very good job or making it clear that they are the party that extends to the center and, at least in some ways or to a degree, just beyond it.  

The GOP has completely abdicated the space and seems to be doing their damndest to alienate even their center-right flank.  But I don't see the Dems making it clear they want to truly represent either.

They won’t win over folks who prioritize abortion over all issues, but that’s not all Christians. And for Christians who ignore everything else about Trump and his current party because they’re single issue voters— those folks are pretty damn narrow & extreme.

From a policy standpoint the most damaging issue is the border and, frankly the Dems supported a very reasonable bill on that Republicans rejected. The sitting President may yet get the blame, but if inflation were in check, Joe still would be sailing toward reelection right now— and the reality is his policies aren’t promoting inflation any more than Trump’s. The economy is white hot, restaurants stay full no matter how much prices go up. Folks complain, but keep feeding it.

Trump knew the border bill would neutralize Biden’s biggest policy weakness. A party is losing centrist voters over their abortion stance now, but it’s not democrats.

[TexasTiger 12,916]

45 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

But I don't see the Dems making it clear they want to truly represent either.

Aside from the transgender posture, what Biden policies are repelling the center right? You keep saying they’re not showing they’re the party of “normal policies.” What policies? You make it sound like a non-normal policies out number normal ones. What policies are Biden, Jeffries, Schumer promoting that are so abnormal?

[TitanTiger 20,485]

37 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Aside from the transgender posture, what Biden policies are repelling the center right?

I'd say it's several initiatives actually, but I think the transgender craziness carries a lot of weight compared to say, one's stance on tax policy.  For many, it flat out renders a person's judgment untrustworthy and I can't say I blame them.  

And it appears even the progressives seem to think he's governing as a progressive:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-05-16/joe-bidens-governing-as-a-progressive-thats-a-surprise-only-if-you-werent-paying-attention

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/05/joe-biden-left-president-radical-domestic-plans-west-wing
 

So do others, especially if he's given the opportunity by a Democratically controlled Congress:

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/01/30/bidenomics-is-an-unfinished-revolution-what-would-four-more-years-mean

People don't think about Biden in isolation either.  They consider whether to support him or other Democrats, depending on the specifics in their House and Senate races based on what they think may happen if the restraints come off.  And I imagine more than a few are concerned that he's slipping mentally (whether it's actually true or not) and that he's being steered behind the scenes.

I don't think you can honestly say great efforts have been made by the Democrats to occupy that middle territory and win over disaffected Republicans.  They seem to just be trying to hold ground and hope Trump and people like MTG are just repellant enough to help them eke out the win in November for the WH.  I think they could do way better if they were willing to.  This country is primed to move off this razor thin national split between the parties but neither of them (the GOP especially) seems to care to take it.

 

[TexasTiger 12,916]

30 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I'd say it's several initiatives actually, but I think the transgender craziness carries a lot of weight compared to say, one's stance on tax policy.  For many, it flat out renders a person's judgment untrustworthy and I can't say I blame them.  

And it appears even the progressives seem to think he's governing as a progressive:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-05-16/joe-bidens-governing-as-a-progressive-thats-a-surprise-only-if-you-werent-paying-attention

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/05/joe-biden-left-president-radical-domestic-plans-west-wing
 

So do others, especially if he's given the opportunity by a Democratically controlled Congress:

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/01/30/bidenomics-is-an-unfinished-revolution-what-would-four-more-years-mean

People don't think about Biden in isolation either.  They consider whether to support him or other Democrats, depending on the specifics in their House and Senate races based on what they think may happen if the restraints come off.  And I imagine more than a few are concerned that he's slipping mentally (whether it's actually true or not) and that he's being steered behind the scenes.

I don't think you can honestly say great efforts have been made by the Democrats to occupy that middle territory and win over disaffected Republicans.  They seem to just be trying to hold ground and hope Trump and people like MTG are just repellant enough to help them eke out the win in November for the WH.  I think they could do way better if they were willing to.  This country is primed to move off this razor thin national split between the parties but neither of them (the GOP especially) seems to care to take it.

 

You’re still talking in generalities. HOW is he “governing like a progressive” and what resulting policies are seen by centrists as not normal? And while disaffected Republicans may never become Democrats, there’s a binary choice this year that’s pretty stark. Between the two choices, who’s closer to Reagan?

[TitanTiger 20,485]

39 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You’re still talking in generalities. HOW is he “governing like a progressive” and what resulting policies are seen by centrists as not normal? And while disaffected Republicans may never become Democrats, there’s a binary choice this year that’s pretty stark. Between the two choices, who’s closer to Reagan?

Did you read any of the links I posted, because I don't think the articles I posted were speaking in generalities.

For instance, the level of government spending is going to concern centrists - especially those who are in the "fiscal conservative/socially liberal or at least libertarian" camp.

And then his full-on embrace of trans cult is going to worry the "fiscal moderate/socially conservative" centrists.

I'm not sure what specifics you're asking for here that aren't provided in what I posted.

Finally, again, it's not a binary choice.  The POTUS doesn't operate in isolation.  A lot of different calculus is being looked at.  If they distrust the direction of the Democratic Party overall, then they're going to be wary of handing both the Presidency and Congress over to them.  If they feel confident the GOP will at least hold one house of Congress, they might vote for Biden (or withhold a vote for Trump) because it will check the progressives.  But if they think the Dems are poised to take both houses, maybe it tilts a bit the other way and a vote for Trump is their only way to keep the Dems in check.

[TexasTiger 12,916]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

Did you read any of the links I posted, because I don't think the articles I posted were speaking in generalities.

For instance, the level of government spending is going to concern centrists - especially those who are in the "fiscal conservative/socially liberal or at least libertarian" camp.

And then his full-on embrace of trans cult is going to worry the "fiscal moderate/socially conservative" centrists.

I'm not sure what specifics you're asking for here that aren't provided in what I posted.

First one had a pay wall. The other mostly referenced he was surrounded by liberals. It shouldn’t be that hard for someone with your position to bullet point at least 5 “not normal” policies since you made the assertion. You’ve done the one I conceded. Spending is no less under Trump. 

[TitanTiger 20,485]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

First one had a pay wall. 

Yes, Biden is governing as a progressive. But that shouldn’t surprise you

By Doyle McManus  Washington Columnist  

May 16, 2021 4 AM PT

 

Then-presidential candidate Joe Biden campaigning near Franklin D. Roosevelt’s second home in Warm Springs, Ga., in October 2020. 

(Jim Watson / AFP via Getty Images)

President Biden’s Republican critics charge that he has foisted a “bait and switch” on voters — that he campaigned as a moderate but veered abruptly to the left after he arrived at the White House.

“The bait was he was going to govern as bipartisan, but the switch is he’s governed as a socialist,” House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield complained last month.

“He talks like a moderate but is governing to satisfy the far left,” Senate Republican chief Mitch McConnell of Kentucky chimed in.

They’re right on one count: Biden is pushing an ambitious progressive program while making it sound, well, moderate.

But their charge of false advertising is bogus. Biden never concealed his big-government goals; they were all in plain sight in his platform.

It’s still on the campaign website for anyone who wants to check. Candidate Biden called for more than $4 trillion in new federal spending, beginning with an immediate stimulus to help the economy recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. It included massive proposals to combat climate change, rebuild infrastructure, reduce poverty, subsidize child care and provide universal pre-K education.

Sound familiar? All those planks resurfaced in Biden’s proposals this year: his $1.9-trillion COVID-19 relief bill, his $2-trillion-plus jobs plan and his $1.8-trillion family-policy plan.

To be fair, McCarthy and McConnell may have been too busy to read up on their opponent’s long and detailed program. Their party saved time by not having a platform at all.

But surely they noticed when former President Obama released a video last year praising Biden for “the most progressive platform of any major party nominee in history.” Or when Biden, in his last big campaign speech, compared his program to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and prom-ised a pandemic plan, a healthcare plan, a climate plan and an economic plan “to give working people a fair shot again.”

“None of this should have come as a surprise,” Greg Schultz, Biden’s campaign manager during last year’s primary season, told me. “My only surprise is that people weren’t listening.”

McCarthy and McConnell weren’t the only ones who underestimated Biden’s commitments. Plenty of progressives didn’t quite believe it, either.

After all, during the primaries Biden had presented himself as a moderate, pragmatic alternative to Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Biden’s Democratic rivals chastised him for centrist positions he took decades ago: his 1970s opposition to mandatory busing to desegregate schools, his 1994 vote for then-President Clinton’s punitive crime bill. Those ancient controversies made him sound like an out-of-touch relic.

But they were forgetting one of Biden’s most striking features: his adaptability. He is — as critics used to say about FDR — something of a political chameleon.

Over 51 years in politics, Biden has always positioned himself at his party’s center — which has required a steady evolution toward the left.

The Biden of 2008 who ran as Obama’s running mate was more progressive than the Biden of 1994 who voted for Clinton’s crime bill. The Biden of 2012 who declared himself a fan of same-sex marriage was more progressive than the Biden of 2008.

When he pondered entering the 2016 presidential race, he intended to run to Hillary Clinton’s left and Bernie Sanders’ right — a classic Biden gambit to seek his party’s center point.

“Biden for President was going to go big,” Biden wrote of the plans for that never-launched campaign in his 2017 memoir. “A $15 minimum wage. Free tuition at our public colleges and universities. Real job training. On-site affordable child care. Equal pay for women. Strengthening the Affordable Care Act. A job creation program built on investing in and modernizing our roads and bridges…. We needed what I called an American Renewal Project.”

Sound familiar?

By the time Biden ran in 2020, two things happened to push him even further.

One was the COVID-19 pandemic, which made it clear to both parties that big spending would be needed to rescue the economy. After Republican leaders, including then-President Trump, approved more than $3.8 trillion in COVID relief last year, GOP complaints about big-money requests from the new president sounded hollow.

The second was Democrats’ unexpected capture of 50 seats in the Senate, which meant the new president could pass much of his program without Republican votes. Yes, Biden had promised to seek bipartisan compromises — but now he no longer had to worry about obstructionist Republicans whose only goal was to stop his program in its tracks.

And that — not spurious charges of a “bait and switch” on policy — is probably what makes Mitch McConnell so grouchy.

[TexasTiger 12,916]

13 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

rebuild infrastructure, reduce poverty, subsidize child care and provide universal pre-K education.

These are the policies centrists hate? Because the rest is talking points.

[TitanTiger 20,485]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

These are the policies centrists hate? Because the rest is talking points.

The price tags for them are concerning even if the aims are laudable.  $4.5 trillion in additional spending over the already record spending levels we're currently at, at a time where tons of gov't spending over the last several years has helped create the inflation situation we're in.  That's going to unnerve fiscal conservatives if you can't explain how you're paying for that instead of adding it to the credit card.

[TexasTiger 12,916]

9 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

The price tags for them are concerning even if the aims are laudable.  $4.5 trillion in additional spending over the already record spending levels we're currently at, at a time where tons of gov't spending over the last several years has helped create the inflation situation we're in.  That's going to unnerve fiscal conservatives if you can't explain how you're paying for that instead of adding it to the credit card.

Who are these truly fiscally conservative voters that see Trump as a fiscal conservative ? And I don’t mean just rich guys who want a tax cut or uninformed folks who think if we cut foreign aid we’d balance the budget.

And, BTW, the infrastructure bill was bipartisan. 

[TitanTiger 20,485]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

Who are these truly fiscally conservative voters that see Trump as a fiscal conservative ? And I don’t mean just rich guys who want a tax cut or uniformed folks who think if we cut foreign aid we’d balance the budget.

And, BTW, the infrastructure bill was bipartisan. 

My guess is that they would write off much of the spending under Trump as being related to the COVID-induced economic nosedive we were in.  

But again, you seem to be intent on making this a simple binary choice between Biden and Trump, in isolation from all other considerations or worries.  That's not how those decisions are made by people who aren't an auto-vote for one party or the other.

[TexasTiger 12,916]

13 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

My guess is that they would write off much of the spending under Trump as being related to the COVID-induced economic nosedive we were in.  

But again, you seem to be intent on making this a simple binary choice between Biden and Trump, in isolation from all other considerations or worries.  That's not how those decisions are made by people who aren't an auto-vote for one party or the other.

My point is this- you seem to be repeating many of the same talking points I hear all the time devoid of much that’s concrete. The articles are similar— quoting people (opponents) that say the same things. It reflects the current state of journalism. It also, frankly, reminds me of all the articles claiming JK Rowling was transphobic. When I dug for actual evidence to support the claims, I didn’t find much (in that case less than this).
 

Biden’s career has been as a bipartisan centrist. His major legislative accomplishments this term reflect that. So far, we’re producing more oil than ever, but most persuadable centrists likely don’t know that because they hear lies over and over from the right. 
 

Frankly, even on the trans issue for title IX, the actual policy is pretty centrist — can’t outright blanket ban all trans students, but doesn’t require schools to allow all trans students participate with the gender they identify with:

Under the proposed regulation, schools would not be permitted to adopt or apply a one-size-fits-all policy that categorically bans transgender students from participating on teams consistent with their gender identity.

Instead, the Department's approach would allow schools flexibility to develop team eligibility criteria that serve important educational objectives, such as ensuring fairness in competition or preventing sports-related injury. These criteria would have to account for the sport, level of competition, and grade or education level to which they apply. These criteria could not be premised on disapproval of transgender students or a desire to harm a particular student. The criteria also would have to minimize harms to students whose opportunity to participate on a male or female team consistent with their gender identity would be limited or denied.

The proposed regulation would recognize that differences in grade and education level, level of competition, and sports must be taken into account for any eligibility criteria that would restrict transgender students from participating on teams consistent with their gender identity.

One-size-fits-all policies that categorically ban transgender students from participating in athletics consistent with their gender identity across all sports, age groups, and levels of competition would not satisfy the proposed regulation. Such bans fail to account for differences among students across grade and education levels. They also fail to account for different levels of competition—including no-cut teams that let all students participate—and different types of sports.

Taking those considerations into account, the Department expects that, under its proposed regulation, elementary school students would generally be able to participate on school sports teams consistent with their gender identity and that it would be particularly difficult for a school to justify excluding students immediately following elementary school from participating consistent with their gender identity. For older students, especially at the high school and college level, the Department expects that sex-related criteria that limit participation of some transgender students may be permitted, in some cases, when they enable the school to achieve an important educational objective, such as fairness in competition, and meet the proposed regulation's other requirements.